The Nationals’ Protest Case
In a win-or-go-home game that finishes 9-8, there are going to be a lot of important moments. Big plays made or not made by players. Important decisions made or not made by managers. Huge calls made or not made by umpires. We never want to focus on the umpires if at all possible because it takes away from the more important and more entertaining aspects of the game. At some point, however, it’s impossible to omit them from the conversation.
In the top of the fifth inning of last night’s deciding Division Series game between the Cubs and Nationals, the visiting team had runners on first and second base. With two outs and an 0-2 count, Max Scherzer threw Javy Baez a pitch in the dirt. Baez swung and missed for strike three, but the ball got past Matt Wieters, allowing Baez to run to first base. During Baez’s backswing, his bat made contact with Wieters’ helmet.
Here’s what the play looked like in real time:
Wieters ran after the ball and then threw wildly to first. The throw evaded not one but two Nationals infielders before right fielder Bryce Harper finally retrieved it. In the meantime, Addison Russell scored from third, increasing the Cubs’ lead to 6-4. The Cubs would add another run that inning, ultimately holding off the Nationals 9-8 to win the game and series.
There’s some debate over whether Baez should have been called out after making contact with Wieters. Had Baez been ruled out, the game would have unfolded differently. Instead of exiting the inning down 7-4, the Nationals would have headed to the bottom of the fifth trailing by just a run. Matt Wieters and Dusty Baker both talked to umpire Jerry Layne about the play, prompting Layne to discuss it with the rest of his crew before allowing the play to stand. While Baker never officially protested the call, there are legitimate reasons — which Jeff Long first brought to my attention — to believe that the umpires might have blown it.
Here is the rule in question, found under 6.03, titled Batter Illegal Action, with the relevant rule being (a)(3). The batter should be ruled out if:
(3) He interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s box or making any other movement that hinders the catcher’s play at home base.
This is followed by a comment, as follows:
If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire’s judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.
We know Baez’s backswing hit Wieters. It was sufficiently obvious that the umpires wouldn’t have missed it. The way the rule above is written, that would seem to be the only relevant matter. The judgment of the umpire is relevant only to the degree that he has determined that the catcher has been impacted.
So Baez should be out and the inning over, right? Well, the umpires saw it differently. From Adam Kilgore’s piece in the Washington Post:
“Backswing interference is a play where a guy is stealing or there’s a play being made a runner hindering the catch,” Layne said afterward. “It was a wild pitch and went past him. That is no longer in that particular description, in my judgment. In my judgment, the passed ball changed the whole rule around to where, in my judgment, it had nothing to do with everything. Therefore, it didn’t have any effect on it. In my judgment.”
[…]
“When the ball gets past him, all right, in my judgment he didn’t have any more opportunity after he had a chance to field the ball,” Layne said. “There was no further play that could have been made on it. The graze of the helmet didn’t have anything to do, in my judgment, with anything at all, with that particular play. I understand, it’s pretty much my judgment. I got together and found everybody was in agreement. That’s what we went with.”
Again, given the way the rule above is written, there’s no room for the type of personal discretion Layne cites here. There’s another rule that would permit a judgment call, however, and it appears to be the more relevant one in this case. (H/T Better Rule Book.)
This is 6.01(a)(1):
6.01 Interference, Obstruction, and Catcher Collisions
(a) (7.09) Batter or Runner Interference
It is interference by a batter or a runner when:
(1) After a third strike that is not caught by the catcher, the batter-runner clearly hinders the catcher in his attempt to field the ball. Such batter-runner is out, the ball is dead, and all other runners return to the bases they occupied at the time of the pitch;
This particular rule actually uses language that specifically addresses the situation we had last night (after a called third strike), identifies the relevant parties (batter-runner and catcher), and directs umpires to utilize their judgment (clearly hinders) to determine if the play was affected. Jerry Layne and the umpires used the appropriate rule, and they were correct to use their judgment.
As for whether that judgment was correct, that’s a separate matter. Here’s the moment of contact in slower motion:
The rulebook specifically uses the word clearly, and this modification of the word hinder ensures that there should be little doubt about whether the potential interference had an effect. Incidental contact that exerts little bearing on the play is definitely not to be considered interference under this rule. That said, there’s a really good argument to be made that what we see here does count as interference of some sort. Wieters’ head is moved significantly by the blow from the bat. With even just a quarter-second more time, Wieters would have gotten to the ball sooner and potentially made a better throw — or, at least, a throw that doesn’t get past both Nationals infielders.
As to whether Layne applied the correct rule, that appears to be the case. There’s nothing replay or a protest could have or should have done to change the result of the play. As to whether Layne correctly interpreted the rule, concluding that Wieters wasn’t clearly hindered by the shot to the head, that’s up for debate. It was an important play in an important game, and Layne and the rest of the crew might have missed one here. Unless replay is fundamentally changed to allow review of judgment calls, however — and even then, the play probably doesn’t get overturned — there is nothing egregious about the call last night.
Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.
“The judgment of the umpire is relevant only to the degree that he has determined that the catcher has been impacted.”
This is not what the rule says. It says that the judgment of the umpire is only relevant as to whether the striking was unintentional or intentional.
In the instant case, the striking was clearly unintentional and thus 6.03(a)(3) and its commentary should apply.
My reading of the rule is that 6.01(a)(1) only applies when, in the judgment of the umpire, the striking is intentional. The usage of the phrase “(not interference)” is the guidepost here, because 6.01(a)(1) is an interference rule. That parenthetical tells you that if the striking is unintentional, it’s not interference, and thus 6.03(a)(1) is the rule to apply.
Otherwise, the commentary to rule 6.03(a)(3) has no meaning.
This guy’s got it. He surely wanted to write “is surplusage” rather than “has no meaning” in the last sentence, but decided to reduce the legalese…
6.01 says it’s interference if the striking clearly interferes with the catcher’s making a play. So if 6.01 is to apply, Baez is out and the inning is over. Layne thinks the striking didn’t interfere, which means that 6.03 applies, and it was strike 3. The inning is also over.
Apparently Layne wants to argue that there was interference, so that 6.03 doesn’t apply, but not enough interference to make any difference. But if there isn’t enough to make a difference, it isn’t interference, and 6.03 should apply.
I should modify my post. I think Layne’s argument is that 6.03 doesn’t apply because it doesn’t fit some special case, where baserunners are on the move. He isn’t arguing that 6.03 doesn’t apply because there is interference. But the bottom line is that his call hinges on not applying 6.03, which from the passages I’ve seen quoted does apply.
To what gbmontgo said, I’d only add that the way Layne has argued, neither rule applies. He’s basically saying there was no interference and no (official) unintentional contact.
Yes, it’s not about how the play was impacted, it’s about protecting the catcher from getting hit with the bat.
Watch Wieters once the ball gets past him. He leans forward into the path of the bat, trying to see where the ball was. One could argue that the catcher initiated the contact.
You could argue that, but, the relevant rule doesn’t address that so it’s not relevant to the decision by the umpire. If it were relevant, the comment to 6.03.a.3 would say something like, “And, also in the judgment of the umpire, the catcher did not initiate the contact.”
True. I was addressing David’s point.
gbmontgo and Ryan DC have pretty much resolved this question as far as I’m concerned. Great work on clarifying this, gents.
that’s not at all true, please see my comment about the PBUC interpretation on the rule
My understanding of 6.03(a)(3) is that, whether intentional or unintentional, the batters action has to interfere with the catcher by “hindering” his ability to make the play at home base.
If his action is, in the umps judgment, intentional interference, then the batter is out. It the action is unintentional, than the call is a strike and the ball is dead.
Baez’s unintentional contact did not hinder the catchers ability to field the pitch.
Once *that* play (fielding the pitch) is over, 6.01 kicks in (fielding the pass ball). If you believe that Baez swing clearly hindered the catchers ability to make that play, then you make the call.
The comment in the official rules specifically says that this situation–catcher unintentionally hit on backswing–is not to be called interference, so the definition of interference is irrelevant.
You are pointing out the part of the rule that was not well thought out. IMO it would be worse to enforce an afterthought of a rule, than to make a judgement call. I expect this rule will be addressed at some point. The fact that there is considerable debate is a good indication that the rule is bad or at least poorly written.
The fact that there is considerable debate doesn’t mean anything more than some people lack reading comprehension.
I see you have crossed over in to full troll mode. Take a deep breath and relax. Nobody needs to go there.
100% correct. As a lawyer, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a rule (or statute) be so crystal clear and unambiguous with respect to this exact situation.
It also says that a strike should be assessed, the ball is dead, and no runners should advance.
The batter is not out for interference, but for having struck out and having estopped his opportunity to advance to first.
To be blunt, your understanding of rule 6.03(a)(3) is not in fact what the rule states. If you wish to read more than the excerpt from the rule in Craig’s post, it’s on page 78 (as numbered on the bottom of each page) in the document at this link – http://mlb.mlb.com/documents/0/4/0/224919040/2017_Official_Baseball_Rules_dbt69t59.pdf
There’s no reference whatsoever to the contact on the follow-through needing to hinder the catcher. It’s a dead ball once that happens, full stop.
All of these analyses are incorrect.
6.03 applies to “batters”, whereas 6.01 applies to both “batters” as well as “runners”. Was Baez a “batter” or a “runner”? Rule 5.05(a)(2) states that “The batter becomes a runner when . . . The third strike called by the umpire is not caught . . . .” When the ball hit the dirt, Baez became a runner. At that moment, 6.03 no longer applies. Instead, the rules regarding runners will apply, including 6.01. After Baez became a runner, the bat hit Wieters. The only rule to apply is 6.01. The umpire then makes a judgment, as Craig describes.
The umpire reached the correct result. His explanation that 6.03 applies only to stolen-base attempts is confusing, but it is consistent with the correct interpretation that 6.03 applies only to “batters” and does not apply in a dropped-third strike situation where the batter is a runner.
The bottom line is that 6.03, despite the broad language that folks are quoting, does not apply to dropped-third strikes.
But Rule 5.05(a)(2) Comment says “A batter who does not realize his situation on a third strike not caught, and who is not in the process of running to first base, shall be declared out once he leaves the dirt circle surrounding home plate.”
So your conclusion that Baez was not longer a batter as soon as the ball hit the dirt cannot be correct, as the comment clearly contemplates some situations where the batter remains a batter for some period of time after a third strike is not caught.
More persuasively, the comment indicates the transition in the instance of a third strike not caught to occur when the batter initiates the process of running to first base. Which Baez only did after completing his swing and triggering 6.03.
I hear you, but the rule doesn’t say that a batter becomes a runner when he starts running to first. It has a different definition, which is that the batter becomes a runner when the catcher doesn’t catch the ball. That is what the rule says. The Comment lays out an exception to that rule; the Comment does not change the rule itself.
I don’t think the comment changes the rule, but the comment provides context to interpret the language of the rule. The comment envisions 6.09(b) (I’m using the official MLB rule book numbering, http://mlb.mlb.com/documents/0/4/0/224919040/2017_Official_Baseball_Rules_dbt69t59.pdf) being triggered, and provides not for an exception, but an addendum addressing a specific possible subsequent action. If the batter becomes a runner as soon as the third strike is not caught, then the comment could not apply, as it only applies to a batter. So I think we have to interpret 6.09 as such.
I will say, that I think you’ve identified the actual critical question. Cheers.
They easily could have written the rule to say that on a DTS, the batter becomes a runner only after he breaks for first. Maybe that should be the rule, and to be sure it makes some sense, but that’s not what the rule says.
I think the Comment supports my reading. You’re taking the reference to “a batter” out of context. The Comment refers to “a batter who does not realize his situation on a third strike not caught”. What does “his situation” mean? Poorly written, right? It means “a batter who does not realize that he is actually now a batter-runner”. The Comment is consistent with my interpretation of the text of the rule.
We could go back and forth, and who knows what the best answer is. Last night the umpire clearly seemed to think that the rule applies only to a SB situation and not a DTS, and I think there’s a lot of solid support for that view.
It’s right there in black and white. As soon as the 3rd strike is called the batter is a runner. Regardless whether he realizes it or not, according to the rule he’s a runner.
This should be the end of this discussion. Baez was a runner the second he swung and missed. 6.03 is a rule for batters. 6.01 is the only rule that could apply to Baez there.
Except that here is an MLB umpire explaining that 6.03 (called 6.06 here because it’s the previous rulebook) applies to a batter hitting the ball on his backswing in an uncaught 3rd strike situation, so there’s no reason it wouldn’t also apply to a batter hitting the catcher on his backswing as well (given that the language in 6.03 is “unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball”).
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/umpires/feature.jsp?feature=call5
His analysis does not consider the implications of the plain text of 5.05, so his analysis is incomplete and cannot be definitive. He is incorrect, just as lots of folks think that *all six* umpires last night were incorrect.
So your contention is that backswing contact can be called whenever the batter hits the catcher on his follow-through EXCEPT on an uncaught third strike? (Because that is the only way the batter would become a runner without putting the ball in play.) That seems like a far less logical reading. And it still doesn’t explain why Baseball Rules Academy, the PBUC, and MLB’s own former Director of Umpire Administration all see it differently.
I will admit that your reading is the only plausible argument for 6.01 being applied in this situation. But as far as we know, the language in the PBUC umpire manual is still: “If this infraction should occur in a situation where the batter would normally become a runner because of a third strike not caught, the ball shall be dead and the batter declared out.” This acknowledges that it is an exception to 5.05 and notes that the backswing rule is still in effect.
The PBUC manual supports my view. The PBUC must have thought that, without the language you just quoted, the rule is that a DTS automatically converts the batter to a runner. Otherwise, they would not have added the language you quoted. MLB doesn’t have that language, so we have to presume that the language doesn’t apply. On this issue, the minor leagues have a different rule than the major leagues. Nothing wrong with that.
Of course not. My contention is that, on a DTS, Rule 6.01 applies, not Rule 6.03. Rule 6.01 says that a batter-runner on a DTS is automatically out if he clearly hinders the catcher. So if the backswing on a DTS hinders the catcher, then the batter is out.
Rule 6.03 says once the batter initiates contact with the catcher, the ball is dead, and no runners can advance. So it doesn’t matter whether Baez is treated as a batter or a runner. When the bat struck Weiters, there was a third strike, followed by a dead ball.
Well the third strike is dropped before the backswing hits the catcher, so BravoBravo is saying that according to 5.05 Baez becomes a runner and thus 6.03 cannot apply because the language of 6.03 only refers to a batter. Which is plausible, I just think that interpretation doesn’t make sense because it carves out a singular exception to 6.03 that goes totally unremarked upon. (Which is why I think the PBUC guidance is useful.)
I don’t think ‘plausible’ is the word I would use to describe the claim that the ball is dead if the batter hits the catcher in the head with a bat, but the ball is NOT dead if a *runner* hits the catcher in the head with a bat.
I agree that 6.03 pretty clearly applies here.
Haha fair enough
Who is saying that “the ball is not dead if a runner hits the catcher in the head with a bat”? Under Rule 6.01, if that happens and the catcher is clearly hindered, then the runner is out and the ball is dead.
I think I agree with Calvo that, assuming 6.03 applies (and I think it doesn’t), the rule plainly states that the catcher must be “hindered” in order for the batter to suffer any consequences described in the Comment. If the catcher is never hindered, then rule 6.03(a)(3) — and the Comment discussing it — never comes into play. You have to look at the Comment in the context of applying the hinderance rule — you can’t take the Comment out of context and look at it as a stand-alone rule.
The Comment merely discusses when hinderance will or will not result in a call of “interference”; it does not expand the rule to cover conduct that does not hinder the catcher. Comments explain the rules, not expand their scope. The Comment presumes that the catcher has in fact been hindered; if the catcher has not been hindered, then the Comment does not apply at all. In other words, when the Comment refers to a backswing that “unintentionally hits the catcher”, it’s talking about only such contact that results in the catcher being hindered, because that’s the entire context in which the Comment is being discussed.
All the Comment means is that if the catcher was hindered unintentionally by a backswing, then there’s no penalty to the batter but the ball should be dead because it’s unfair for the catcher to act on a live ball when he’s been hindered.
By contrast, if the catcher has not been hindered, then there’s no reason for the ball to be dead. Sometimes it doesn’t matter whether you’re actually hindered (such as a HBP that grazes the uniform), and sometimes it does matter whether you’re actually hindered (such as when an umpire maybe gets in an infielder’s way). Baez’s backswing falls into the latter category.
You are 100% correct. It doesn’t take a Supreme Court Justice to easily see that. The umpire Layne was wrong. Dusty should have been able to protest (and win) and this article is terrible.
Ok applying 6.03(a)(3) would impose a strike and a dead ball. That’s strike 3 and a dead ball with no runners advancing – batter is not out for interference, but is out for having struck out and having no avenue to advance.
Even as a Cubs fan, I thought Layne was off all night. His strike calls were terribly lazy, and there was one called strikeout of Rizzo that was so weirdly called that no one in the stands where I was sitting in left field had any sort of idea as to what was going on.
He basically said “strike”, so Rizzo knew it and he stood there dejected for about 3 seconds before Layne awoke from his daze and made the hand gesture. I’ve never seen an ump take so long to make the hand gesture as last night. That had to be annoying for all other parties involved.
You have to do the hand gesture. I believe there was a player on base, what is he supposed to do? But yeah, Lane was lazy. It was a lot better than the umpiring the night before.
Was that before or after Layne took a direct hit to the mask.
“That said, there’s a really good argument to be made that what we see here does count as interference of some sort. Wieters’ head is moved significantly by the blow from the bat. With even just a quarter-second more time, Wieters would have gotten to the ball sooner and potentially made a better throw — or, at least, a throw that doesn’t get past both Nationals infielders.”
Thanks for this article. Very interesting. Regarding the above citation, however, I’d pick a few nits.
I’m a biased Cubs fan, and perhaps that’s affecting me. But I don’t agree that the argument that Baez clearly hinders Wieters is “really good.” It seems marginal. Wieter’s head does not seem to move “significantly”. It moves slightly. And it moves in the direction the ball is heading, not away from it as to impede his pursuit. For what it’s worth, my non-official eyes don’t see clear hindering.
“I’m a biased Cubs fan”
Yeah.
I admit my rooting interest, but I still don’t see a really good argument that Baez “clearly hinders” Wieters from fielding the ball, which had already gone past him. Perhaps Wieters should have flopped or something.
That’s fine. In that case, 6.03 applies, and it’s strike 3.
Hmm… Ok. Let me work this out for a second…
1. Scherzer pitches.
2. Baez swings past a check. Strike 3.
3. Ball past Wieters.
4. Baez becomes a runner.
5. Baez’s backswing makes contact with Wieters.
6. Wieters runs after ball.
7. Baez runs to first.
So if he’s a batter when his backswing hits Wieters, 6.03 makes it strike 3, dead ball. And dead ball means he doesn’t get first. But if he’s a runner, not a batter, perhaps the rule doesn’t apply? Or perhaps another rule applies? 6.01?
But the non-official rules downthread make it look like Baez should still be out, regardless of batter/runner status.
Well, then I’ll have to grant that the rules likely weren’t correctly applied. But what DID transpire felt a lot more like baseball than had the rules been followed to the letter.
Perhaps that means we need new rules to match what the umpires felt was the right call. Or Baez could, you know, hit a ball once in a while.
Thanks for the discussion. Bring on the down votes! 🙂
Yes, I think you’re getting at a possible counter-argument. But first, your sequence is not correct. The gif above clearly shows that Weiters got clocked while Baez was in the batter’s box–it could hardly be otherwise–not after Baez had started running.
But here is the counter-argument. From Rule 6.03, it was strike 3. However, since Weiters dropped the ball–in fact, it was past him before he got hit by the bat–the usual rule that a batter is not out until thrown out at first applies. The problem with this argument is that 6.03 specifically states that in this case the ball is dead, and runners can’t advance. So the inning is over.
Also, this isn’t the argument that Layne made; he claimed that rule 6.03 only applies when someone already on base was trying to steal or otherwise running. Based on what was quoted above, I really don’t know where this notion comes from, but since he specifically rejected Rule 6.03, he went directly to 6.01, where he found there was no interference.
If you buy Layne’s argument, then you can argue that there was no interference, nor even any unintentional contact. But if you assume that 6.03 did apply–and again, unless there’s something in the rulebook that no one has actually quoted, it does seem to apply–then Baez is out.
Hi
I am not sure if it matters, but Wieters basically moved into the path of the bat, which struck only a glancing blow, and was too close to the batters all night (catchers interference was called on the very next batter). I do agree that based on the rules as written, the ball should have been dead and Baez should have been out on strikes. What’s interesting is that earlier versions of that rule seem to imply that it should be called a strike if the unintentional contact hinders the catchers ability to secure the ball, but that language is no longer present. It would be interesting to learn the history of why that change was made.
In spirit, I do agree with the umpires premise that the contact did not really affect the play, but it seems that he did not apply the rule correctly. I’d love to hear MLB weigh in…not sure if they will.
I don’t see how one can ignore the catcher moving into the swing path. If this rule is enforced for literally any contact with the bat, then catchers would be incentivized to lunge toward the bat on all passed balls. It’s like getting hit by a pitch that was also a strike – no free base for the batter.
As long as he was in the catcher’s box, it doesn’t matter.
Edit: actually you can leave the box to catch a pitch, so it really doesn’t matter at all
plus we’re not criticizing the batter’s bat when it hits the catcher’s glove in a catcher’s interference play. For C.I. the bat has the right to be there, not the glove. Likewise, here the catcher has the right to be there, not the back swing.
Then there is literally no reason for a catcher to go out of his way to catch a ball if it has been swung at and missed with runners on or on strike 3. Just reach over and touch the bat – its a dead ball and nobody can advance.
Well, hey if the pitcher sails a pitcher over the head of the catcher with 2 strikes the batter can swing and run to first. Just because someone can do something crazy (and hard) to create a loophole in a rule doesn’t mean that the rule doesn’t apply. If what you’re saying starts happening more than once every 100 years (which I doubt) THEN MLB could consider changing the rule (and adding, “If, in the umpire’s judgment, the catcher did not initiate or cause the contact,”). Until then, it is irrelevant. Just because there is a bizarre potential loophole to a rule doesn’t make the rule invalid or not subject to an interpretation according to the plain meaning and strict wording of that rule.
“What’s interesting is that earlier versions of that rule seem to imply that it should be called a strike if the unintentional contact hinders the catchers ability to secure the ball, but that language is no longer present.”
That history is interesting.
Nothing more than an educated guess, but I wonder if that’s tied to the increased awareness of concussions: i.e., MLB would like this rule to really discourage hitters from taking swings that hit the catcher’s head on the follow-through.
An alternate (and maybe complementary) educated guess is that “hinders the catchers ability to secure the ball” was seen as too difficult of a judgement call to make when we’re talking about the catcher being hit in the head by a bat moving with some force.
To me the rule comes from this theory: the ball just went to the catcher, the only defender within about 60′ of the ball, and the the stupid batter whached the catcher, potentially knocking him out of commission–again, the only defender in reasonable distance from the ball. So, dead ball, too bad offense, should have thought of that when taking that back swing.
So, one way Weiters could have been interfered with is just being out of it, his judgement and balance may have been knocked askew by the bat smacking him. This rule says, dead ball because of that.
I’m not sure how it’s clear he obstructed Wieters. It obviously didn’t make him lose the ball in the dirt as that the contact occurred after the ball passed him. There’s too many what-ifs in that scenario. It may have impacted the throw, it may have impacted his ability to spot where the ball was. If anything, it may have actually helped him spot the ball as the contact directed him in the direction of the passed ball.
It’s fairly absurd to think that being struck in the head by a baseball bat helps a player do anything. I agree that the passed ball didn’t occur because of the contact, but the momentary shock of being stunned by the contact of the bat does a catcher no favors in going to recover the ball.
I also disagree with Craig’s premise that Layne was applying the correct rule, as gbmontgo explains well above.
It’s like if face masking in the NFL was OK so long as you point the mast where the opponent should be looking anyways.
While face mashing has a jerk component, part of it is that having your head jerked around is not easy on the brain or neck and can be disorienting.
The next batter got on base as a result of catcher interference. Based on your own logic, do you agree La Stella should not have gotten a free base because of all the what-ifs involved with catcher interference?
What if a batter intentionally swings at the catcher’s mitt?
Have you seen a baseball game?
It shouldn’t be too much to ask for the men paid to know and enforce the rules of the game of baseball to actually know and enforce the rules of the game of baseball.
The umpires are literally citing rules that don’t exist (Layne says here, and explained to Dusty last night something about base stealing, which had nothing to do with the play last night) and are failing to enforce rules that do. Nothing else aside from that should actually matter.
Some rules are bad or conflict, like this one. I think Layne did the right thing to exercise judgement. A robot would have called him out as per the confusing, poorly thought out rule – score one for the humans!
The MLB rulebook is 284 pages long. To expect the umpires to know every single rule in that document is insane. Especially when it is on a play that happens once every decade, if that often, and there seem to be at least 2 rules that could potentially apply to the situation, if not more of them. I wouldn’t be shocked if that was the first time this particular thing came up for these umpires.
Mistakes happen.
the reason for the call to Umpire HQ should include rule book interpretation, not simply slow-motion replays and freeze-frame…otherwise, why have Umpires on the other end of the phone? Anyone can look at replay
You really want more timeouts? More people who have nothing to do with the game weighing in?
Even if I agree with alpha309’s premise – and I’m not sure that I do – that calls for the umpires to use a process to check for the correct rule when an unusual situation occurs and they aren’t sure what rule(s) apply.
That could be calling a “rules czar” at the league office, or it could be pulling out the rulebook on the field to find the correct rule. I understand that could cause some delays, and the games are already long enough.
The premise, though, is that the umpires will only be unsure about plays that are very uncommon. In other words, this should be a rare occurrence, and it would also make sense for MLB to send a memo to all umpires explaining the situation every time that such an unusual play occurred.
I strenuously disagree that these rules conflict any more than we can claim that a whole lot of the MLB rulebook conflicts. The nature of a lot of baseball rules is a whole series of “If this event clearly happened, make this call. If not, proceed and see if another rule applies.”
Layne should have applied rule 6.03(a)(3), which is unambiguous that the ball was dead and Baez was out in this situation because his bat hit the catcher on the follow-through. Layne had no need to consider the judgment call of “clearly hindering” the catcher as interference under rule 6.01(a)(1).
As a matter of conceptual construction, the combination of rules 6.03(a)(3) and 6.01(a)(1) is no more complicated than the idea that a baserunner can be out because a fielder tagged him OR because he left the base path trying to avoid a tag. While the Baez situation is a less common occurrence, the logic of how these rules interact is no more difficult than the “the fielder tagged the baserunner out, so there’s no need to proceed to the judgment call of whether the baserunner left the basepath to avoid an attempted tag.”
I agree that many rules conflict to some extent and I appreciate your thought out reply. That’s why baseball professionals should have judgment that reigns supreme IMO. I am not sure what you disagree with. It sounds like you get that some rules conflict or have problems. this isn’t the only one. Maybe you don’t disagree, I don’t know.
I disagree with how you suggest that the rule book should be used in general. I think it is a problem that the rule book is 284 pages long. When you have sports rules written by lawyers, it doesn’t really make things more clear. I think that you get further away from on-field baseball as the rules get written by people who don’t understand the game… which is surely what happened here. There is no good reason that Baez should be out… as long as a dropped strike three allows a batter to reach, which is a different discussion. If Baez was out on a technicality then that would have been bad IMO. The rule book is full of poorly thought out rules, it doesn’t really matter until they are enforced. Thank goodness that this one wasn’t
How many pages of the rule book are designed to define human intent? That is pretty much what determines whether a player is out or not if it is not an actual on-field moment. I am great with leaving that judgment up to the umpire. The flaw with this rule is that it needs the word judgment in it – the lawyer who wrote this forgot to add that part.
“There is no good reason that Baez should be out”
Yes, there is a good reason, which is that the hitter really isn’t supposed to hit the catcher on his follow-through and shouldn’t get any even potential advantage on a play from doing so. I don’t see that as a technicality any more than a hit by pitch including the ball barely grazing a batter’s uniform.
As someone pointed out below, it was no more Baez fault than Weiters. Batters are not called out for hitting catchers on their back-swings – it happens all the time. If Weiters blocks that ball as he should have, then this isn’t a discussion. You want to blame Baez, I get that.
“Batters are not called out for hitting catchers on their back-swings.”
Right, because according to the rules, unintentionally hitting the catcher on your backswing means a strike call and a dead ball, not an out. If you do it on a third strike, then you definitely are out. Whether the strike is caught or not is irrelevant to the application of the rule.
That ball was past Weiters before Baez made contact with him. How do you not see that? That ball is 10 feet past Weiters by the time anything happens. It sounds like all we have done here is identify a rule that needs to be re-written. If there is not room for judgement, which there always should be, then the rule needs to be re-written. I can guarantee you that the rule is not enforced like that, nor should it be. Hitters who make contact with a catcher on the back-swing are not called out very often – that’s for sure. Weiters lost that game for the Nationals – he made many mistakes last night, not just that one. Derek Norris is looking pretty good right now!
The point is not that getting hit by the bat made Weiters drop the ball. The point is that it may have affected his throw after he retrieved the ball. But if it wasn’t interference, then the first rule, (3), applies and Baez is out and the inning is over.
It seems to me Layne’s interpretation depends on assuming it was interference–hence rule (3) doesn’t apply, it’s not strike 3–and yet it wasn’t interference that actually, you know, interfered with Weiters’ ability to do anything.
Oh, is that the point? I think you are conveniently ignoring much of the discussion. That is a stretch but I get your point. It is not like he got knocked down or evaluated for a a concussion – it feels like the only excuse that you can make. Weiters did a lot of things wrong on that play, much as he did all night.
Well at least your last sentence is correct, typo notwithstanding.
Where is the rule that ‘once the ball is past the catcher the batter no longer has an ability to hinder him’? Layne cited as evidence for his call a rule that doesn’t exist – two rules are cited in this piece, and neither one addresses what Layne said.
According to Baker, what he was told in real time was ‘the rule only applies on stolen bases.’ Given that Layne mentioned that in his explanation, it certainly seems plausible that’s exactly what’s Baker was told. Which was, frankly, wrong.
Layne’s explanation doesn’t line up with either rules that are cited, either to the media or to the Nationals at the moment.
“That ball was past Weiters before Baez made contact with him. How do you not see that?”
True. Irrelevant under the rules, but true.
I agree that (3) seems to cover it, and Layne doesn’t seem to be on solid ground by arguing that it only applies in special cases. That said, (1) also seems to apply. The real problem is that (3) and (1) can provide conflicting answers. (3) says it isn’t interference, whereas (1) says it is.
Respectfully, I don’t see any conflict between them all.
6.01(a)(1) is a catch-all interference rule covering “clearly hinder[ing] the catcher in his attempt to field the ball”. That encompasses situations beyond the batter hitting the catcher in his head with the bat on the follow-through, such as the extreme case of the batter shoving the catcher to the ground and then running to first.
6.01(a)(3) is a specific rule saying that it’s a dead ball after a batter’s follow-through swing hits the catcher in the head. It’s also a strike (the result of the play, because the hitter swung) if the umpire judges it unintentional, or an out if the umpire judges that it was intentional.
And, more generally in baseball, if there are two or three rules that potentially MIGHT be the reason that a hitter or runner is out, he’s not safe just because the umpire judges that one of them doesn’t apply. The ways that a batter or runner can be out are really a long series of “OR” statements: e.g., a baserunner is out if a fielder tags him while off a base OR if the baserunner leaves the basepath OR if the baserunner illegally interferes with a fielder, etc.
Feels like the ump should have potentially called into MLB offices for a rules clarification there. They did that in the crazy Jays-Rangers game 2 years ago. If not by their own actions, I think that the manager can request that, and if they don’t agree, then launch an official protest. This feels like a crucial enough play that a manager shouldn’t just sit back and take for granted what the umpire’s “judgement” of the rule should be.
I think that 6.03(a)(3) comment should apply, not 6.01. The point of the specific comment in 6.03 is not about base running, it is don’t hit the catcher in the head with a baseball bat. If it’s unintentional you get a dead ball strike. If it is intentional it’s interference and you’re out (and likely to get tossed from the game for, you know, whacking the catcher in the head).
The backswing didn’t effect the catcher actually blocking the ball, but I wonder if it effected him getting to the ball and making a good throw to first.
It should also be noted: Wieters, as immediately as we could see on the telecast, was arguing that he was hit and the play should be dead. Baker also said that’s what HE was arguing. Had Wieters just stopped and not gone after the ball at the point of impact instead of making the play, he probably ‘sells’ the umpire into giving him the call. Which seems like a weird thing to punish Wieters for (trying, that is).
But the larger point is this isn’t some obscure rule that never applies anywhere, or only applies in uber-specific instances: Wieters, without hesitation, was pointing to his face and asking for the right call to be made. If Wieters knew the rule there, then it isn’t something that should take tons of after the fact investigation or detailed explanation.
People tend to know the rules that are designed to protect them specifically. Catchers therefore know that when you get hit in the head with a bat, the ball is dead.
Chuck Knoblach tried that back in 1998. Didn’t sell, and it got him in a lot of trouble.
The worst thing Chuck Knoblauch could do is pick up a ball and throw it.
Given that the umpires apparently agreed that Baez’s bat had hit Wieters, the Nationals should have protested the play at the time. (Apparently a manager needs to inform the umpires immediately, before any additional play, that he intends to protest a call.)
This situation was exactly what can be protested: claiming that the umpires interpreted the rules incorrectly. It was immediately clear that the incorrect call had allowed at least 1 run to score (Russell scored from 3rd on the play), and after the play there were still runners on 2nd and 3rd with 2 outs.
See Ryan DC below about the baseball rules academy. If wieters gets him out nobody cares that he got hit, so worth a try.
As a Nationals fan, my perception is that Wieters misses the ball well before the contact and the ball is half way towards the back stop before Baez’s bat makes minimal contact. The contact seems insignificant and does not impede Wieters or affect his ability to chase the ball or make the throw. Wieters should have caught the ball and should not have thrown the ball. That malfeasance is not impacted by the strike to his mask. If Lane had made any other call, he would have been imposing an arbitrary reality that the play on the field did not support. He could have ruled that any contact renders the ball dead and there is no advance. That would have sent everyone scurrying for the rule book. But I do not think the rules should impose a reality that the play of the field does not support. Lane allowed the players to play and the ball to fall where it fell. I like that more than having a poorly considered rule cover a poorly executed play. Wieters could have made up for his poor defensive play by driving in two runs with the bases loaded several innings later. He did not because he is no longer anything approaching a major league quality starting catcher.
Respectfully I think you’re missing the point. The Rule is Batter Illegality. It is Illegal in the rules for the batter to hit the catcher in head with the bat. If the catcher is hit in the head with a swung bat, the ball is dead, as it should be. The only question is whether it was intentional and an out or unintentional and a strike.
It is a shame that we are discussing the rule book when we could be talking about a great game. I regret contributing to this conversation.
Not a fan of either team. At the time the bat hits Wieters the ball is already by him. It does not appear to hit Wieters in the helmet but clips the outer part of the face mask. After being hit, Wieters immediately removes his mask, like most catchers in that situation, and retrieves the ball. He doesn’t appear to be dazed or even pause for a little. The umpires explanation actually makes sense to me.
Lost in all this, Scherzer didn’t cover home plate (shown on a video at a different site). Wieters didn’t have an option to throw home or hold the ball because the runner from 3rd scores easily even if the throw to 1st is caught.
As previously noted but several commenters, whether or not Wieters was affected is totally irrelevant.
You don’t have to be that guy. Some of us care more about baseball than technicalities. All of this is about intent. I think that Weiters just screwed up, which he did. Spud’s insightful post is not irrelevant. Why would you want to silence a discussion?
There should be no discussion. Once Wieters was hit by the follow through, the ball is dead. Wrong call.
“As previously noted but several commenters, whether or not Wieters was affected is totally irrelevant.”
Irrelevant to the wording of the current rules, yes. But not irrelevant to some baseball fans’ perspective on how the rules should be going forward.
Sure, but the impetus for this entire discussion is whether or not the rules were applied correctly. If you want to argue that the rule was applied wrongly but also is bad for baseball, go right ahead.
Does anyone else see the irony in all this?
This call, the slide rule, replay on over-slides?
We want robo-umps, because we want to take human error out of the game.
We want to make the game safer, but not in the spirit of the game.
We want reviews, but we don’t want them to be perfect.
By the time Baez’s bat grazes Weiters’ helmet/facemask, the ball was already 8-10 feet past the catcher and rolling away quickly. In no way does the bat grazing the helmet interfere with the catcher’s ability to make a play on the ball. Because of how far the ball had already rolled, Weiters had no shot at getting Baez at 1B even if the bat had not grazed him and even with a good throw.
The bottom line is that Baez grazing Weiters’ helmet with the bat made no difference in the play. The umps made the right call.
That’s not how rules get enforced though. If a player illegally slides into second base on a double play ball when the batter is one step from first, they still call the batter out. It’s not like rules like this only apply when they directly affect the outcome.
As previously noted but several commenters, whether or not Wieters was affected is totally irrelevant.
It is funny that down voters are hunting down this type of comment. When ten people say the same correct thing, it is very relevant. If you are a letter-of-the law guy that doesn’t want to do any critical analysis, then go ahead, please do. I don’t care to stop you because I actually believe what I wrote. Although I don’t agree with the down vote army, I appreciate knowing that others are that different than me. If this was black and white, this thread would not exist.
Except the letter of law is exactly the issue at hand. If you want to argue that the rule is dumb, that is very different from arguing that the umps applied the rule correctly, which they clearly did not.
Its not different. Its what I have been saying, but not what you have been wanting to read. Why defend a flawed rule? The argument is that the umpire did the right thing here by exercising his judgement. We have probably put more thought into this rule today, than whoever wrote it. This isn’t a document that was carved in stone thousands of years ago to shape humanity, but we are sure treating it like that today. I appreciate you toning it down FYI.
I’m not defending a flawed rule! I have no opinion on whether the rule is flawed–maybe it is. Maybe they should change it! The point is that the rules are the rules, and your opinion of the rules has no bearing on whether the ump should apply them correctly. Otherwise why bother having rules at all?
Since Wieters moved into the Baez’s swing path, the argument is equally made that Wieters initiated the contact. If you call the batter out for this kind of play, you may see catchers veering into the follow-through a lot more often.
Only if Wieters left the catcher’s box. Which, given that he doesn’t move forward at all, is unlikely.
Edit: actually you can leave the box to catch a pitch, so it really doesn’t matter at all
I am not sure how many people want to step in the way of a club to get hit repeatedly. Fairly sure it hurts.
I agree with alpha309, and the idea that catchers would do this intentionally also assumes unlikely if not implausible reaction time and risk/reward trade-offs from the catcher.
The catcher’s first thought on any pitch to stop or catch the ball, but apparently we’re assuming that he can swiftly shift from that idea to noticing the hitter’s follow through and moving into the path of the bat. It would be virtually superhuman to try to do both at once: block the ball and move into the path of the follow-through. The clear downside for the catcher is that he’s increasing his chance not to block the ball and might also not make contact with the bat. If the bat doesn’t hit the catcher, then he’s just allowed a wild pitch or passed ball that maybe he could have gotten.
The catcher’s ability to make contact with the follow-through of the bat is also dependent on a fairly long follow-through on a limited range of swing planes: the catcher can’t just do it on any swing.
Apply the tools of ignorance liberally, repeat as necessary…
Great point. This does not deserve down votes. To one of your critics, Baez didn’t leave the box either or make an effort to hit Weiters. Nobody should get penalized on that play.
“Nobody should get penalized on that play.”
So, is that a claim about what the rule OUGHT to be (but isn’t), or about whether it was called correctly? If it’s the former, say so — you’ll probably get fewer downvotes.
That said, I can’t argue with a rule that says “don’t hit the catcher in the head with your bat” very much.
FWIW, this exact situation is specifically referenced in the Baseball Rules Academy guidebook:
“If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and in the umpire’s judgment unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of the batter on the follow-through or backswing while the batter is still in the batter’s box, it shall be called a strike only (no interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play. If this infraction should occur in a situation where the catcher’s initial throw directly retires a runner despite the infraction, the play stands the same as if no violation had occurred. If this infraction should occur in a situation where the batter would normally become a runner because of a third strike not caught, the ball shall be dead and the batter declared out.”
(https://baseballrulesacademy.com/user/rules-interpretations/ump-interpretations/55-backswing-follow-hits-catcher/)
Their interpretation isn’t an official MLB ruling, but it suggests even more that the ump made the wrong call. Whether or not Wieters was affected by getting hit on the mask by the bat is totally irrelevant, as soon as the contact was made the ball was dead (because by then the third strike was already not caught). Baez should’ve been declared out. Wieters was totally right, although I will still hate him forever.
I’d say that’s worth a fair amount.
I had thought based on the postgame show last night that the umpires missed seeing Baez’s bat hit Wieters. That would be a bad miss, but at least it falls into the realm of human error on a judgement call (albeit a situation where I think that the rules should allow for a replay review, which they apparently don’t right now).
In many ways, however, the actual circumstance was worse. Layne saw what happened, but the umpires simply didn’t know how to apply the rules correctly. They were also certain enough in their incorrect interpretation not to call the league for a rules clarification.
As the first commenter (gbmontgo) states above, Layne’s explanation is wholly illogical and unconvincing based on the text in the rulebook. I hope that the league office comes out with a statement on this play, because they’ve had a postseason umpire screw up the rules and then provide an explanation for his decision that doesn’t match the written rulebook.
In another external source, in a continuation of the same comment from the MLB rulebook, the PBUC states, “If this infraction should occur in a situation where the batter would normally become a runner because of a 3rd strike not caught, the ball shall be dead and the batter declared out.” So this again states nothing about judgement, just the strict ruling that Baez did in fact hit Wieters with his backswing
Very well put Michael
I think Layne got the rule wrong.
I find it amusing that you (FG not you personally) argue against the “if the runner comes off the base for an instant and is tagged, he’s out” and for “if the batter’s backswing hits the catcher on a dropped strike three, whether intentional or not, he’s out”. This is the nature of rules and replay, you can’t decide which ones count and which ones don’t.
Admittedly the former is a missed judgement call and the latter is a sketchy interpretation of a rule based on what the ump acknowledges he saw. But both are dumb rules.
As established by several of the commenters here, including gbmontgo, Layne clearly misapplied the rules. I wonder why Dusty did not file a protest? It might not have been upheld (not because the call was right, but because MLB hates to uphold protests), but maybe just telling them you were going to file a protest would have got the crew on the horn to MLB so that they could get the call right.
What manager was it that used to carry a rulebook in his pocket and bring it out to point to the rule during arguments – was it Earl Weaver? I guess Dusty is just not old school enough.
One last thing: I may have figured out where Layne’s seeming confusion about the rules came from. This language we are referring to is the current language. However, the rule used to read like this:
“6.06 A batter is out for illegal action when … (c) If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire’s judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing BEFORE THE CATCHER HAS SECURELY HELD THE BALL, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.”
That language did imply that the relationship of the catcher to the ball was relevant to the application of the rule, although it is not clear whether it empowers the ump to determine whether the catcher was affected in his ability to make a play.
At any rate, Layne clearly screwed up, but he might not have been totally conjuring his interpretation from thin air, although he might have been wrong under the previous rules as well.
Just saw that TwinPeaks mentioned the same thing
I think you are right – I am also wondering why the language you emphasized was removed, as that is a significant change. I like the earlier version of the rules, to be honest, but Layne was clearly wrong given the current rules as written. I have determined that the rules change was made in 2013 – trying to see if I can find out why.
The other thing I’m wondering is (1) if Layne even knew that Baez had hit Wieters (mask) with the bat, and (2) whether that is a reviewable call.
I’m curious about why the language was changed as well. My (admittedly biased) suspicion is that they changed it specifically for circumstances like these in order to reduce the number of things the ump has to make a judgment call about on a single play. If that’s true, it makes Layne’s ignorance of the change even more egregious.
Layne’s comments after the game didn’t really make much sense, so my opinion of his knowledge of the rules isn’t very high at the moment. He referred to “backswing interference” but that is not the rule in question. He seemed completely unaware of rule 6.03(3) from what I can tell.
6.01(a) and 6.03(3) are not in conflict with each other. One or both may apply in a given situation to penalize a batter who commits one of those acts
I understand the point of having certain things that a manager can and cannot challenge. What drives me nuts is plays like this and MLB just throws its hands up and just says “oh well”.
The change that I would like to see is that every single play can be reviewed if it is deemed detrimental to the outcome of the game by the umpire crew chief. Limit what a coach can challenge. But if umpires are consistently considered the be all end all, give them the tools to do the job correctly.
Im not a nats fan and really dont think the non-call would have made much of a difference. But regardless replay needs to be tweaked.
this play was not dependent on review. The facts were not in dispute: the catcher was touched and it was unintentional. This was a misapplication of the rules, which is grounds for protest. I agree, though, that NYC should be able to overturn a misapplication of rules after a manager protest. This would not preclude a post-game protest review, as we currently have, where I imagine one or both teams submits an argument.
I was more of using this play as an example to a greater problem.
Replay should be used for every aspect of the game if the umpire crew chief deems it necessary. Plays that impact the game, whether or not this Nats play is one of them, should be able to be reviewed regardless. Why umpires can get together to talk about a play is acceptable but getting in contact with NYC isnt makes zero sense.
Like I said in the original post, limit the coaches, but umpires shouldn’t be restricted to the same limitations.
I’m seeing a lot of disagreement, and I appreciate the interaction and the different interpretations of these rules.
I still believe my interpretation is correct for a couple reasons.
1. 6.01a1 specifically mentions the dropped third strike situation.
2. If 6.03a3 controlled, and there were a situation with less than two outs and runners were trying to steal, the rule as applied would send them back to their bases on a wild pitch when they would clearly be safe and the backswing has no effect on that.
It is a situation that requires judgment from the umpire given all the moving parts, and that the rule that specifically requires judgment uses the dropped third strike situation, that rule is going to control over a situation where variables could lead to unfair outcomes.
And as for the specific usage of “strike only (not interference)”, I believe that is in there to specify that the batter should not be called out as he would under interference rules, for example if it happened on a 1-1 count: batter is not out, it is 1-2 and runners couldn’t take a base.
the batter is not being called out because of the interference, but because it was strike 3, and his action triggered a rule which says action must stop. If there were no strikes on the batter, we wouldn’t have any problem with a straight application of the rule
Right Craig, because in that case there is no interference. Which means that 6.01 doesn’t apply. Similarly, in this situation, there was no interference. So 6.01 doesn’t apply. Which, like Real McNulty and phpope said, means 6.03 does apply. Not sure what’s confusing about that.
6.03(a)(3) requires judgment on whether or not the contact was intentional, not the magnitude of the contact.
IF you want to talk about “unfair outcomes”, how do you come up with a result other than Strike 3, you’re out pending a putout, but you triggered 6.03(a)(3), so you’re out.
I’m not sure where you got the idea that 6.03(a)(3) requires a determination of intent. The umpire has to determine that the batter made a movement that hindered the catcher in some way; no determination of intent is required.
As for fairness… I don’t see anything unfair in the rule “You hit the catcher in the head with your bat; that’s a strike and a dead ball.”
I appreciate the discussion that you started. Unfortunately, people are picking a side and there is little discussion. The bickering consists of rule-followers vs people who want to analyze the context of the play (exercise judgement). It is an age-old debate and I think both have an indisputable viewpoint. On one hand rules are rules. On the other hand, rules are static and not written for real life. IMO the only thing you can do wrong here is not see the other side.
We may have helped to identify a bad rule. Unfortunately something like this has to happen to get the discussion started.
You can’t use “rule-followers” as a pejorative when the discussion is literally about whether the rules were followed lol
How else would you use it? I have general debates with people pretty regularly that have this same structure. I don’t think you know what I mean by rule-followers – its a personality type. There are some people that would never speed or jaywalk because it is a rule. There are others that interpret the rules as they see fit.
The point is that there’s nothing to interpret. There is no judgment call to be made. There is no ambiguity to argue over. I’m sorry you don’t like the rules, but you can’t just ignore the ones you think are dumb.
I think that’s a bit reductive to split the commentary into two sides. I assume there are others in addition to myself, who think the outcome was correct in spirit, but wrong by the rule book. Our issue is that the above article is wrong in asserting the outcome was correct by the rule book.
If you want to argue the rule is bad, like others including myself, contend w/r/t a runners foot coming a millimeter off the bag, that’s a different discussion.
I think it is an accurate analysis of the problem with this lack of discussion. I am one of the main people holding your position. Why you would reply to that comment, I don’t really know.
Apologies, I missed your sentence indicating you felt that this was a bad rule too. I do stand by my saying that there is a third group of people who don’t necessarily object to the outcome but don’t agree with claims the rule was interpreted correctly. So basically, people who speed while driving, but don’t claim they were not breaking the law when they get pulled over.
But you misunderstand how rules work. It’s not an instance of 6.01(a)(1) not being violated so therefore no other rule applies. That would obviously be absurd. 6.01(a)(1) contemplates what happens if the batter “clearly hinders” the catcher after a passed ball third strike. If he does not, as here, then the rule does not apply. That’s a judgement call and was probably interpreted correctly in the game last night
But that does not mean 6.03(a)(3) does not apply. There is no conflict between the rules. And it’s a well-established principle that in the absence of any preemption, both laws will apply.
Also, your point 2 hypothetical is correct, but irrelevant. You may disagree that that is the ideal outcome of the rule, or not in the spirit of the rule. But it clearly would be the correct outcome of that situation according to the rule book.
But there is an alternative to saying there is a bad outcome possible in the rule even if it is not in the spirit of the rule.
You can say that the rule doesn’t actually apply to this situation because a reasonable rule wouldn’t lead to this outcome, basing it on the language of this rule as well as others which are more specific by situation.
You could also argue that the rule only applies to “the catcher’s play at home base” and that a ball at the backstop is not one of those plays, instead of having inequitable outcomes like the hypothetical.
These are all arguments that ignore the rule as written. You can make any argument about the spirit of the rule you want, but that doesn’t mean the rule shouldn’t have been applied as written. The fact that you came up with a hypothetical whose outcome you don’t like is not germane at all.
And moreover, I personally think the spirit of the rule is to avoid catchers getting bashed in the head by baseball bats, so I don’t see how your “inequitable outcome” would violate that. But of course that’s the problem with relying on the spirit of the rule: it’s whatever we want it to be.
Respectfully, you’re now making a different argument that the rule shouldn’t apply, not that it doesn’t. Or to the extent that you’re arguing it doesn’t, you’re adding text to the rule that isn’t there.
Which is fine, but contrary to the purpose of the rule book, which specifies when a rule grants discretion to the umpire. And by including language indicating when the umpire can decide a rule doesn’t apply because it would be unreasonable, you have to presume that the absence of such discretionary language was intentional as well.
The rule regards interference and the batter being out. The comment adds on a specific situation where there is not interference. I am making the argument not on what the rule should be, but how we should interpret these rules as they are written. I think it is fine to try and determine the intent of these rules so long as it doesn’t counter the specific language of the rules. Because the comment does not specifically deal with this situation and it is carving out an exception to one rule, it seems quite possible that the intent of this rule is to not apply to wild pitch scenarios, letting standard interference rules govern.
I understand many disagree and that they believe the wording in the comment is sufficiently specific to apply here. I don’t read the rules that way.
The point is that there is nothing to interpret. As soon as you determine, under 6.01, that interference did not occur, there is no reason to try to apply 6.01–or the comment on it–to the situation. Why speculate about the intent of the rule when the text is very clear?
As written, the rule doesn’t say anything about the ball being declared dead UNLESS THE CATCHER WAS NOT AFFECTED. The underlying premise is that getting hit in the face with a baseball bat might make it more difficult to make a play. Not sure what is absurd or unfair about that.
“If 6.03a3 controlled, and there were a situation with less than two outs and runners were trying to steal, the rule as applied would send them back to their bases on a wild pitch when they would clearly be safe and the backswing has no effect on that.”
Craig, reading the text of the current rule, that’s exactly what it does. There’s no provision for judgment that the follow-through did or didn’t hinder the catcher. The rule is that it’s a dead ball, full stop. Quoting the rule: “The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.”
You and some others apparently don’t think that’s what the rule should be, but I read it as unambiguous that’s what the rule is. I don’t see any good basis to claim that’s some sort of accident or mistake in the rulebook, because the MLB rulebook liberally uses phrases such as “in the judgment of the umpire” when the goal is for the umpire to have discretion about what the outcome of the play otherwise would have been.
As some others have also said, maybe part of the intention is that the rule is supposed to be somewhat punitive to the batter’s team as a way to discourage batters from hitting catchers in the head with the follow-through of swings.
Keep in mind also 6.03 applies to batters. Do we know for sure that Baez is considered a batter in that situation?
I’ve read that view upthread, and I see it as a tendentious and illogical reading of the rule. The plainly logical reading of the rule is that it’s about what happens when a batter swings at a ball and then hits the catcher on the follow-through.
But let’s even parse the language from 6.03(a)(3) word-by-word:
“If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpire’s judgment, unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.”
Baez was obviously a “batter” striking at the ball and then carrying the bat all the way around to hit Wieters, because he was a batter when he started his swing. If anything, highlighting the point that Baez becomes a runner after a dropped strike three just serves to clarify the point that Baez can’t take first base because “no runner shall advance on the play”.
but if that is what the rule does, I think we have to consider that maybe the rule doesn’t actually apply in those situations.
I also find it interesting that much of the language in the Baseball Rules Academy mirrors the comment we are talking about yet the comment leaves out the application on a dropped third strike.
“But if that is what the rule does, I think we have to consider that maybe the rule doesn’t actually apply in those situations.”
Why?
I respectfully but completely disagree with your last paragraph, because that’s not how the rules of baseball are constructed generally or in this specific instance.
6.01a1 is a catch-all interference rule on dropped third strikes to cover a situation not specifically addressed elsewhere. The situation of the bat hitting the catcher on the follow-through, however, is already covered clearly, without any judgment about hindering the catcher except whether contact occurred, by 6.03a3. Even if Layne thinks, “well, that didn’t hinder the catcher and trigger an out under 6.01a1”, he still needs to think through if there’s any other provision of the rules that would trigger an out or a dead ball.
My reading is completely consistent with how the rules of baseball are generally constructed, as they’re very much a series of “or” statements about the many ways that there can be an out on a given play or a strike on a given pitch.
It’s pretty simple. 6.01 and 6.03 are ambiguous enough that either could be applied in this situation. At that point it’s basically up to the crew chief to decide which to use. He went with 6.01.
Fault the rule book for being too ambiguous if you want, but you can’t fault Jerry Layne….the call was left to his interpretation, so that’s what he did.
6.01 is not ambiguous, it clearly states the circumstances under which interference can be called. Under 6.01, there was no interference, and so interference was correctly not called. 6.03 clearly states that the bat contacting the catcher on a backswing results in a strike and a dead ball. That is exactly what happened, so there should have been a strike and a dead ball. No interpretation required.
lol – now you’re just making stuff up.
I’ll start by saying I think Baez should have been called out. But is it possible that this was the interpretation by the umpires?
1. Baez (batter) swings and misses.
2. Wieters misses the ball.
Rule 5.05(a)(2) states that:
(a) The batter becomes a runner when:
2) The third strike called by the umpire is not caught, providing (1) first base is unoccupied, or (2) first base is occupied with two out;
3. Baez (now a runner) hits Wieters on the backswing.
Because Baez is a runner, the umpires decided that rule 6.01(a)(1) applied and rule 6.03(a)(3) did not.
I think the real question is whether rule 6.03(a)(3) supersedes rule 5.05(a)(2) in this case and that the batter’s backswing is still relevant once Wieters drops the ball. I’d argue yes, but I think there is enough ambiguity there.
what is the purpose/effect of 5.05(a)(2). Does that just create the dropped third strike rule, or does that have further-reaching effects?
This is a far more plausible explanation than Craig’s, although I’m still inclined to defer to the Baseball Rules Academy interpretation. And this article by an official MLB umpire suggests that 6.03 (called 6.06 here because it is the previous version of the rule) would still apply.
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/umpires/feature.jsp?feature=call5
I agree, my instinct would have been to go with the Baseball Rules Academy interpretation as well. And that article is interesting. Unless there is some importance to the batter hitting the ball before the catcher had a chance to catch it, then I imagine this rule should be applied the same way to the backswing hitting the catcher.
It’s difficult for me to imagine that the type of backswing contact would matter, because the only question is whether turns the batter into a runner. No reason I can see that hitting the catcher on the backswing would turn a batter into a runner but hitting the ball on the backswing would not.
Indeed the language in the PBUC as cited by commenter Mike Ozga (and the article I linked to) is pretty clear:
“If this infraction should occur in a situation where the batter would normally become a runner because of a third strike not caught, the ball shall be dead and the batter declared out.”
Meaning that in this case, the batter has not become a runner due to his contact with the catcher on his backswing, and he is out on strikes with a dead ball, just as we had thought.
This is what defending a flawed ideal looks like.
Stop trying to turn your unconcern with the wording of the rules into some great virtue lol. If you disagree with the rule, that’s fine, but it’s still the rule. Pretending that the rule doesn’t matter just because you don’t like it is silly.
I am curious as to why you feel fit to pass judgment on anything here. You seem like you are here for one purpose – to destroy any meaningful discussion. There are 200 comments here and yours are the only one that matters? There is an opportunity to learn something here if you want to take advantage of it.
According to the current rules, the conclusion is clear.
Baez is out and the inning is over.
1. If you think Baez’s backswing clearly hindered Wieter’s fielding, 6.01. (a) (1) applies and Baez is automatically out.
2. If you think Baez intentionally hit the catcher with the backswing, 6.03. (a) (3) applies and Baez is automatically out.
3. If you think Baez’s backswing did not clearly hinder Wieter’s fielding and he did not intentionally hit the catcher,
then 6.03.(a)(3) comment applies and Baez gets a strike and therefore is struck out.
Note that case 1 and case 2 are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
You could argue about which of these rules should be applied here,
but there is zero ambiguity about what the result should have been.
A very solid case can be made that on the basis of 6.03(a)(3) the ball became dead when the bat hit the mask and the runner on third should have to stay there. That said however, on what basis should Baez be called out, given that we can agree that the contact was unintentional? The whole point of the dropped third strike rule, in a situation where it applies at all, is that the batter is not “automatically” out when he swings and misses or takes a third strike. There needs to be a putout made, by the catcher either catching the pitch on the fly, tagging the batter, or throwing the batter out at first. Clearly a putout becomes impossible as soon as the ball is declared dead.
I think the rule here is so poorly-conceived that it literally can’t be correctly applied at all. There is no “correct” application. Layne made the best of an impossible situation by making no call and letting the play proceed.
“That said however, on what basis should Baez be called out, given that we can agree that the contact was unintentional?”
On the basis that the comment to 6.03 specifically addresses unintentionally hitting the catcher in the head with your bat, and clearly asserts that this is a strike and a dead ball?
If the ball is dead, the batter-runner (or any other runner) cannot advance. It three strikes have been recorded, and advance is impossible, then the batter is out. I can see the point you’re making, but it requires giving precedence to “putout must be recorded” over “ball is dead”, which seems to me to defeat the point of “ball is dead”.
So, what would happen at this point if MLB were to find Washington’s protest to be founded? What remedy is there considering at this point they are not getting on a plane to go to LA.
There’s no remedy at this point because the Nationals missed their chance to protest.
The Nationals could have protested the play because the dispute involves the rules being misapplied, since the umpires agree that Baez’s bat hit Wieters on the follow-through.
As I understand the protest process, though, the first step is that the Nationals need to notify the umpires of the protest before the next play. The Nationals would then after the game file some sort of formal request with the league office, which rules on whether the protest is upheld and whether it impacted the outcome of the game. If the ruling is that it did change the outcome, then the game is replayed from the point of the overturned ruling. https://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Protest
So the Nationals missed their chance to protest the call once they played on without notifying the umpires of a protest. My view is that the Nationals should have protested the call.
One would hope that a protest would have escalated the issue enough at the time that the umpires would have taken more effort to figure out the call before the game continued, such as by calling the league office (which I think the umpires can do for a rules question). Letting the game go on and then later having to replay the last 4 innings due to a misapplication of the rules would clearly be something of a nightmare outcome for the league, the teams, and the umpire crew.
The argument for interference appears to be the better one, especially under 6.01(a)(7.09)(1). As for the remedy I get that the replay rule can’t be used for judgment calls, but don’t understand – from a rules perspective – why there is not a protest remedy, that the Nationals assert a protest, the game is played on, and ends, and afterward the protest is heard, and if the protest succeeds, the game continues at that point, just as when George Brett got a chance after a reversal of being called out on the pine tar rule.
Practically this seems impractical in a playoff situation and no protest was filed and this is now moot. But is there no formal protest remedy? That might at least allow a hearing of the facts.
Joe Torre confirmed in an interview that Baez should have been called out under the Rule 6.03 comment – http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/21174468/joe-torre-confirms-wrong-call-made-passed-ball-nlds-game-5-cubs-nationals
Torre also said in the interview that Baker could have requested that the umpires get on the headset to New York for a rules check.